Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 20STCV18798, Date: 2023-04-19 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20STCV18798    Hearing Date: April 19, 2023    Dept: 52

Plaintiff Lauren Drablier’s Motions: (1) To Compel a Response to Request to John Thomas McGuire to Supplement His Responses to Requests for Production of Documents, and (2) To Compel Further Responses to Second Set of Special Interrogatories

Supplemental Request for Production

            Plaintiff Lauren Drablier moves to compel defendant John Thomas McGuire to respond to her supplemental request for production No. 1.  “[A] party may propound a supplemental demand to inspect, copy, test, or sample any later acquired or discovered documents, tangible things, land or other property, or electronically stored information in the possession, custody, or control of the party on whom the demand is made.”  (CCP § 2031.050(a).)

            When the responding party fails to timely respond to requests for production, the requesting party may move for an order compelling responses.  (CCP § 2031.300(b).)   Failing to timely respond waives any objections.  (CCP § 2031.300(a).) 

McGuire failed to timely respond to plaintiff’s supplemental request for production.  Plaintiff served her supplemental request for production No. 1 on McGuire on November 21, 2022.  (Hayes Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 1.)  McGuire had not served any response by March 27, 2023, when plaintiff filed this motion.  (Id., ¶¶ 1-2.)  Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order compelling defendant to serve a response to her supplemental request for production.

 In his opposition, McGuire argues he served supplemental responses to plaintiff.  (Opp., p. 1, Ex. 1.)  The exhibit (which is not authenticated by a sworn declaration), however, is a response to plaintiff’s supplemental interrogatory under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.070.  This motion is about plaintiff’s supplemental request for production.

Further Responses to Special Interrogatories

Plaintiff Lauren Drablier moves to compel defendant John Thomas McGuire to further respond to special interrogatories, set two, Nos. 63-72, and 79.  A party propounding interrogatories may move to compel further responses when an answer “is evasive or incomplete,” or “[a]n exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.”  (CCP § 2030.300(a).) 

McGuire responded to all the disputed special interrogatories by producing documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230.  “If the answer to an interrogatory would necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and if the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party, it is a sufficient answer to that interrogatory to refer to this section and to specify the writings from which the answer may be derived or ascertained.”  (CCP § 2030.230.)

McGuire’s exercise of section 2030.230 was unwarranted for two reasons.  First, his response was untimely.  “If a party to whom interrogatories are directed fails to serve a timely response,” he “waives any right to exercise the option to produce writings under Section 2030.230.”  (CCP § 2030.290(a).)  Plaintiff personally served special interrogatories, set two, on McGuire’s counsel on October 7, 2022.  (Hayes Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 6.)  McGuire’s responses were due on November 7, 2022, 30 days later.  (CCP § 2030.260(a).)  McGuire served his responses on November 14.  (Hayes Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 7.)  His responses were untimely, so he waived any right to produce writings instead of answering the questions.

Second, McGuire has not shown that the answers “necessitate the preparation or the making of a compilation, abstract, audit, or summary of or from the documents of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed, and” that “the burden or expense of preparing or making it would be substantially the same for the party propounding the interrogatory as for the responding party.”  (CCP § 2030.230.)  Assuming the answers necessitate making a compilation or summary, McGuire has not shown that the burden or expense of doing so would be substantially the same for plaintiff.  McGuire’s opposition makes no attempt to justify his reliance on section 2030.230.

McGuire’s reliance on section 2030.230 was unwarranted.  For example, No. 79 asked, “If MCGUIRE contends that he is entitled to reimbursement of any EXPENSE that he paid or incurred in connection with or related to the ZITOLA TERRACE PROPERTY, from the proceeds of any future ZITOLA TERRACE PROPERTY sale, IDENTIFY each such EXPENSE and, separately for each EXPENSE, state all facts that support his contention.”  The response turns on McGuire’s contentions as to which expenses McGuire he claims a right to reimbursement.  Only he can answer that.  The “burden or expense of preparing or making” any compilation or summary would therefore not “be substantially same for” plaintiff as for defendant.  (CCP § 2030.230.)  Moreover, the interrogatory asks McGuire to state all facts supporting his contentions.  That should not require making a compilation or summary.

Sanctions

            Plaintiff moves for $825 in sanctions for her motion to compel a response to supplemental request for production and $2,200 in sanctions for her motion to compel further responses to interrogatories.  Defendant and his counsel are subject to sanctions for unsuccessfully opposing both motions.  (CCP §§ 2031.300(c) [requests for production]; 2030.300(d) [interrogatories].)  Defendant did not act with substantial justification.  Sanctions are just under the circumstances.  Plaintiff reasonably incurred all expenses she claims.

Disposition

Plaintiff Lauren Drablier’s motion to compel defendant John Thomas McGuire to respond to supplemental request for production No. 1 is granted. 

Defendant John Thomas McGuire is ordered to a serve a verified response to supplemental request for production No. 1 without objections within 20 days.  Defendant John Thomas McGuire and defense counsel David C. Voss, Jr. of Voss, Silverman & Braybrooke LLP are ordered to pay plaintiff $825 in sanctions within 20 days.  Defendant John Thomas McGuire and defense counsel David C. Voss, Jr. shall be jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.

Plaintiff Lauren Drablier’s motion to compel defendant John Thomas McGuire to further respond to special interrogatories, set two, is granted. 

Defendant John Thomas McGuire is ordered to serve verified responses to special interrogatories, set two, without objections and without exercising the option to produce documents under Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.230 within 20 days.  Defendant John Thomas McGuire and defense counsel David C. Voss, Jr. are ordered to pay plaintiff $2,200 in sanctions within 20 days.  Defendant John Thomas McGuire and defense counsel David C. Voss, Jr. shall be jointly and severally liable for the sanctions.